“I’d be ashamed of my civilization if we had the tools to find out the answers and refuse to look.”

-Carl Sagan

1 Introduction

The question of whether we are alone in the universe may forever remain unanswered. Certain aspects of the universe’s nature might be considered impossible to answer definitively. However, some questions about the nature of the universe are answerable, but may never be answered. Should we be searching for extraterrestrial intelligences (ETI)? Currently, there is no scientific evidence that extraterrestrials of any kind exist. The prevailing trend in literature is often that extraterrestrial beings are the ones who discover us, while the idea of humans finding them is less commonly depicted. 

The question of whether we should be searching for extraterrestrial intelligence is a divisive topic that has been debated for decades with a wide range of arguments for and against the search. The overarching theme of this search is for the search of extraterrestrial life. However, it is essential to distinguish the practice of searching for extraterrestrial intelligences (SETI) from the general search for any form of extraterrestrial life (ETL), which is typically associated with biosignatures and involves a different scientific approach. 

The search for ETL involves a more direct survey of exoplanets– planets that are found outside of our solar system. SETI utilizes these practices too, but the most prominent method is listening to interstellar radio waves. The discovery of an artificial radiowave would surely suggest intelligence, and it is the main way SETI is conducted. The focus of this paper aims on this search for extraterrestrial intelligences. 

SETI can be practiced passively, as described above, using radio and exoplanetary surveys. Alternatively, it can be practiced actively, which involves attempting to initiate a conversation with extraterrestrial intelligences. This practice is referred to as METI, or the messaging of extraterrestrial intelligences. The distinction between the practices of SETI and METI gives rise to distinct philosophical implications. Simple remote detection, as practiced in SETI, differs from the active effort to contact ETIs in regards to avoiding or creating existential risks. SETI is essentially a passive and relatively safer endeavor, with a higher probability of being innocuous. On the other hand, METI involves an active approach and carries a non-zero chance of adverse consequences.

The argument made in this paper builds off of the Great Filter Theory, a theory proposed by economist Robin Hanson, which aims to explain why we may or may not be alone in the universe. I will use philosophical views on METI and the Great Filter to argue that, in today’s age, we are not in an appropriate position to attempt the messaging of extraterrestrial intelligences. Instead of practicing METI in today’s age, the best course of action would be to wait until we bypass a future step of the Great Filter. These steps mentioned are not a part of the current theory of the Great Filter, and in this paper, I will postulate an additional step to the Great Filter– termed the Implosion Filter– which deals with the challenge of overcoming dangers spawned by our own intelligence. In the context of METI, it is crucial to recognize the importance of taking this certain step before attempting to communicate with potential extraterrestrial intelligence. I contend that humans should exercise caution and delay such attempts until we have achieved significant advancements in our own progress and understanding, not just of the universe, but how to coexist as a human civilization.

1.1 Timeline

To show how humans have approached the topic of extraterrestrials, I will briefly summarize a history of the matter, and outline a timeline of attempted practices with extraterrestrial intelligences. This section will situate past knowledge and practices, and invite us to look towards where this paper is headed: our future. 

There has been a fascination with extraterrestrial life as far back as the ancient Greeks. It was not until recently that we have started to grasp the nature of the cosmos. At the time of the Ancient Greeks, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth using sticks, shadows, and mathematics. Five hundred years ago, Copernicus proved that the Earth revolved around the sun. Soon after that, Galileo would take notice of worlds that also had their own moons. One hundred years ago, Hubble would correctly postulate that there are other galaxies in the universe and that the Milky Way was just a drop in the cosmic ocean. Just fifty years after Edwin Hubble’s work, astronomer Frank Drake started the first Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) experiments using radio telescopes. Today, we now understand that there are as many, if not more, exoplanets as stars in the universe. 

Our knowledge of the universe has been a recent development. The common understanding of ETI has only developed in the last hundred years or so, fueled by science fiction, UFO hysteria, and the birth of SETI-type programs. Our understanding today of exoplanets vastly differs from what we knew sixty years ago. It seems more likely that ETI could exist elsewhere, however, with every detection of Earth-like exoplanets comes more hope and more doubt.

To show where METI started and how it has come to be today, below is chronology of METI events:

Radio begins (1900s):

The Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi is often credited with making the first practical use of radio waves for communication. In the early 1900s, Marconi successfully transmitted wireless signals over long distances, culminating in the first transatlantic radio communication in 1901.

Early Radio and TV Broadcasts ( 1920 & 1927)

Westinghouse sources the idea for radio programming expanding the one-to-one capabilities of radio to a commercial practice. Their first commercial broadcast covered the results of the presidential election of 1920.

In 1927, Philo Farnsworth achieved the first television broadcast with a simple straight-line image. Only seven years later, in 1934, the United States Congress introduced the Communications Act, marking the initial regulation of television transmissions.

Arecibo Message (1974):

In 1974, the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico transmitted the Arecibo Message, a binary-encoded radio message, towards the globular star cluster M13. The message contained information about Earth’s position, human DNA, a depiction of the solar system, and other scientific data. It was a one-time transmission meant to demonstrate the capabilities of the Arecibo radio telescope.

Voyager Golden Records (1977)

This is an example of a METI practice that lacks the use of wave transmission. The Voyager records are golden phonograph records carried by the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft, containing a diverse selection of sounds and images intended to represent Earth’s culture and achievements. This attempt is a “message in a bottle” sort of communication, and acts as a time capsule of the human species in hopes it will someday be found and interpreted by extraterrestrial intelligences. 

Cosmic Call (1999):

The Cosmic Call project was initiated in 1999 by the European Space Agency (ESA). Using the RT-70 radio telescope in Ukraine, two messages were sent to nearby Sun-like stars, 47 Ursae Majoris and HD 245409. The messages contained encoded images, music, and mathematical concepts.

Teen-Age Message (2001):

In 2001, researchers at the Institute of Radio-engineering and Electronics sent the Teen-Age Message, a METI project that transmitted messages from students aged 11 to 17 years toward four nearby stars. The goal was to engage younger generations in discussions about interstellar communication.

Lone Signal (2013):

The Lone Signal project was launched in 2013 and operated for several years. It allowed the public to send text messages of their choice to the Gliese 526 star system, which is about 17.6 light-years away. The messages were sent via the Jamesburg Earth Station in California.

1.2 Understanding what it means to message

Numerous early instances in the timeline involve unintentional METI practices. These transmissions, cast into space, perpetually journey onward. If decoded by extraterrestrials, these early signals would depict humans as they were about a century ago. The span of Earth’s transmissions toward distant stars matches their age, constrained by the speed of light. As time progresses, present-day news broadcasts traverse a light-year annually. This introduces a challenge to the paper’s premise: constant unintentional broadcasts. 

Does advocating for a halt to intentional messaging imply a cessation of unintentional signals? This section aims to contextualize this complexity and propose a means to overcome it, directing attention back to the primary focus of the paper.

While the idea of messaging extraterrestrial intelligences can be seen as straightforward in the action, it is not as clear cut in theory and forethought. There is a distinction between sending a message and writing said message; there is also a distinction between intentional messaging and unintentional messages, as seen previously in the timeline of METI events. While we all have experience with messaging and communicating with one another, we have zero reference frame for messaging and communication to and with other equal intelligences. 

Sending messages to extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) is a project in its own right, even if it does not involve two-way communication. The definition of METI encompasses the act of sending messages, without necessarily implying that there will be communication in return. The primary goal of METI is to initiate contact and convey information to other intelligent beings in the universe, however we send messages into the cosmos every second inadvertently through radio and television broadcasts. 

This paper centers on intentional endeavors to communicate with extraterrestrial intelligences. Expanding the discussion to encompass both intentional and unintentional METI activities would dilute its precise focus. Additionally, advocating for the regulation of unintentional messaging would be formidable, given that radio waves are now integral to human civilization as a fundamental tool.

How we write messages to send is tricky as the only assumption that we can make about ETIs is that radio seems the best way to communicate. We cannot assume they will understand how to read our message, but one assumption we hold now is that math is universal. It is the way many messages are encoded, as seen in the Cosmic Calls and other METI attempts. These messages utilized binary numbers to represent other ideas in mathematics such as prime numbers and the base-ten system humans use more often than not. 

Messages are crafted within the framework of our cultural and linguistic systems. They reflect our understanding of the world, our shared knowledge, and our assumptions about how information should be conveyed. When transmitting messages to extraterrestrial civilizations, we must consider the challenges of conveying complex concepts, overcoming potential linguistic barriers, and ensuring our intended meanings are accurately interpreted.

1.3 Where are all the extraterrestrials?

More hope brings more doubt: the general paradox of the question–where are all the extraterrestrials? As we continue to discover more and more exoplanets, we open up the door for more opportunities to detect ETI. But as of today, with five over thousand exoplanets discovered, there are no signals, life signatures, or visits by ETI. Why may this be? Let us first look at past and current calculations and philosophies about what has been deemed the “Great Silence.”

Our search for artificial signals has not been successful, which suggests that intelligent life may be rare in the galaxy. The universe, prima facie, is not teeming with intelligent life. Humans seem to be isolated in the universe, but optimism remains for SETI efforts, as disproving the existence of any ETI is quite an unlikely outcome due to the sheer amount of possibilities for inhabited planets in the universe. But proving their existence could only take the remote detection of a satirical radio signal. But the lonely truth is, with each passing day, as we continue to hear nothing but the empty echoes of the universe, the Fermi Paradox, discussed in the next section, becomes increasingly relevant.

1.3.1 Drake Equation and Fermi Paradox

Frank Drake, an  original proponents of SETI, proposed an equation to calculate the number of electromagnetically detectable ETI civilizations in our galaxy. The equation is composed of multiple mathematical proportions. A number of these components are speculative, sparking debates on whether they diminish the equation’s usefulness at predicting anything. The equation follows as:

N = R_* ᐧ f_p ᐧ n_e ᐧ f₁ ᐧ f_i ᐧ f_c ᐧ L

where: N is the number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy with capacities of interstellar communication; R_* is the average rate of star formation in the galaxy; f_p  is the proportion of those stars that have planets; n_e is the mean number of planets that can potentially be inhabitable per star; f₁ is the proportion of potentially-habitable planets that develop life; f_i is the proportion of those planets that develop ETI;  f_c is the proportion of ETI civilizations that develop intelligent electromagnetic signaling technology; and L is the window of time for which those ETI civilizations release detectable signals into the cosmos. 

The Drake equation gives less of a formulaic answer and more of a contemplative one, as the parameters are difficult to ascertain without actually discovering ETIs in some way. Since developing it in 1961, scientists have redefined some of the proportions, namely f_p  and n_e  at the countless discoveries of exoplanets and the very few but identifiable Earth-like planets. 

The Fermi Paradox can be summed up as such: if there are so many stars with planetary systems in the universe, where are all the extraterrestrials? If the universe is teeming with life, we would expect at least a signal from some distant or even archaic civilization. But to this day, we have received only naturally occurring electromagnetic transmissions and unconfirmed theories of worldly visitors. Does the silence speak for itself?

1.3.2 The Great Filter Theory

The Great Filter is a way of answering the Fermi Paradox. This paper will concentrate on exploring the implications of the Great Filter Theory and its significance for METI. Proposed by economist Robin Hanson, Great Filter Theory suggests that in astrobiology there is an obstacle or threshold that prevents a species or civilization from progressing to a certain point. This point, Hanson has argued, is an explosion of life from one civilization out to far reaches of the relative area. Essentially, it is space colonization bounded by the condition that an extreme disaster, like self-infliction or a supernova, would unsuccessfully wipe out the entire civilization. By Hanson’s argument, and the Drake Equation, the universe should be teeming with life, colonized by various civilizations that originated millions of years before. 

The concept of the Great Filter suggests that within the framework of the Fermi Paradox and Drake Equation exists the set of factors or “coefficients” that act as potential barriers to the development and persistence of intelligent civilizations. It is thought that one or more of these coefficients have values so low that even if the remaining factors were favorable, they alone would significantly hinder the emergence of advanced civilizations. 

Therefore, if extensive exploration and research were to reveal the existence of abundant non-technological life forms, it would serve as compelling evidence that these low coefficients operate and are present either during or after the attainment of significant technological advancements. This, in turn, would indicate a risk of catastrophic events or existential threats that could potentially lead to the destruction or downfall of our own civilization.

But the universe, from the perspective of our position in the galaxy, is not teeming with life at all. The Great Filter then suggests there is an obstacle to achieving this advancement of our species, and that obstacle or filter may lie in our past and we have conquered it, or in our future, where we have yet to overcome the hard part. 

If we were to discover abundant artificial technology in other solar systems, this would imply that the filter may be in our future. If we were to find abundant biosignatures, with no evidence of technology, that would imply that the filter may lie in our past, as we are one of the few who survived the Filter. Haqq-Mirsra et al. (2010) furthers this point: “The discovery that life is common but technology is rare would increase confidence that the Great Filter is near—either in our most recent evolutionary past or, most worryingly, in our immediate future.” 

But so far the truth is: we have zero hints of technosignatures or life. Current technologies cannot confirm the existence of life on exoplanets; we can only discover strong inclinations of life through the spectroscopy of an exoplanet’s atmosphere. Without direct detection of a technosignature, life outside our solar system can only be probabilistic, speculative, and hopeful. The Great Filter as it stands today is a theory waiting to be invoked. Without a reference frame, the Filter is something we can guess is in our future or in our past. If life elsewhere is developing at a similar rate and rank as ours, we may simply have not had enough time to listen for others. At any instant, the Filter, based on the nature of the universe, is before or past us, or in the sad but possible case we are alone: nonexistent.  

Some individuals have cited the scarcity of life as a justification for refraining from interstellar messaging. However, my central argument does not revolve around this perspective. Instead, I propose that there exist today distinct reasons to avoid messaging, and these reasons would lose their validity if we were to reach a new stage within the framework of the Great Filter.

2 Importance of METI: Past, Present, and Future 

Humans as of today are not in the best position to message extraterrestrial intelligence (METI). 

I aim to demonstrate that even though the arguments for METI are universal, there are stronger ones against METI, but only apply under some conditions. 

The arguments for practicing METI today include: 

1. It is an Important Question: One of humanity’s biggest questions is whether we are alone in the universe. It would be a mistake to forgo curiosity, especially in such an active and collaborative manner that METI encompasses. 
2. The Collaborative Human Effort: The practice of writing messages helps us fine-tune the way we represent ourselves. METI may be the only effort to craft representations of the human species for the intention of an extraterrestrial audience. The pursuit of METI requires international cooperation and collaboration, which could foster global unity and promote peaceful relations between nations.
3. Potential Return: Benevolent ETIs may choose to offer us their help or assistance. By initiating contact, we may receive valuable knowledge, data, or other forms of information that could be used to our advantage.
4. To Give Reason to Respond: If we choose not to send any messages at all, there may be a lower chance that any extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) would detect us or respond. By practicing METI, however, we are taking the initiative to send the first message and then patiently waiting for a response

The scene of SETI and METI today is much less than what it was in recent decades. The 1970s were influenced by astronomers Frank Drake and Carl Sagan, two of the most outspoken proponents of SETI. The improved radio capabilities and the establishment of the SETI Institute in the 1980s boosted the interest in SETI research throughout the 80s and 90s. More recently, however, governmental aid has ceased, and private funding is the only thing keeping SETI alive.

SETI and METI are no longer in discussions in the US Congress. Over two-thirds of congressional hearings that mentioned SETI took place between 1970 and 1996. The most recent hearing that focused on astrobiology, aside from UFO/UAP hearings, was six years ago. It is no surprise that SETI has lost its luster– we are more than capable of detecting ETI, but after fifty years we have come up empty.

The past evolution of SETI leads us to the modern view that METI efforts are on the backburner politically, socially, and scientifically. Although this does not warrant a complete halt, it presents a significant factor as to why METI lacks practical importance currently, yet holds immense significance for human pursuits in both the present and future. Passive SETI is cheaper and raises less ethical concerns than METI. Past METI efforts have value not in sending but in curating messages. It begged the question famously asked by Carl Sagan: Who Speaks for the Earth? Today’s literature on METI is certainly conscious of the ethical concerns that were ignored in past METI efforts. 

Current projects to contact extraterrestrial intelligence have lessened in recent years. However, a team of scientists from all over the world collaborated in 2022 to update the famous Arecibo Message. The Arecibo message was a binary-encoded radio message sent to a distant star cluster in 1974. It was designed to be an introduction to humans and our Earth, and it contained information about basic atomic science, the chemical composition of DNA, the human physique, our solar system, and the radio that sent information. The message was broadcast into space using the Arecibo radio telescope, and it is estimated that it will reach the cluster in about 25,000 years. 

3 Anti-METI Arguments: Why We Should Halt Today

The following section will go over four main arguments that oppose the practice of messaging extraterrestrials today. It is my goal in this paper to illustrate why these arguments incline us to pause and reconsider in the present, but do not hold in the future at a certain point of technological and sociological responsibility within our civilization. 

3.1 The Fermi Paradox

The Fermi paradox is a concept that raises the question of why, given the vast number of potentially habitable planets in the universe, we have not yet observed any clear evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations. This paradox leads to various hypotheses and speculations about the existence and behavior of advanced alien civilizations. The Fermi paradox also implies that there could be a reason why civilizations don’t reach advanced technological stages or survive for long periods. If such a reason exists, this resembles a Great Filter. 

The Fermi paradox deters METI (Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence) projects by suggesting that if advanced civilizations exist, they have not made their presence known to us through any observable means. This lack of contact or communication from extraterrestrial civilizations can be interpreted as a cautionary sign, making some scientists and civilians alike hesitant about actively broadcasting our presence to the cosmos. They might argue that if there are advanced civilizations out there, they may have reasons for not revealing themselves, and we should exercise caution to avoid potential risks or unintended consequences. Section 3.3 expands on the existential threats that come with this active version of searching for extraterrestrial intelligences. 

Considering these uncertainties and potential risks, proponents of METI projects, like myself, may argue that it is prudent to exercise caution and delay active messaging until we have a better understanding of the potential implications, risks, and the nature of extraterrestrial civilizations. They may advocate for further scientific advancements, an understanding of the universe, and thorough discussions regarding the potential benefits and risks associated with METI before engaging in deliberate interstellar communication.

3.2 The Incompatibility Argument 

George Gaylord Simpson may be the first outspoken opponent of METI. In his influential paper, The Nonprevalence of Humanoids, Simpson famously claimed:

If human origins were indeed inevitable under the precise conditions of our actual history, that makes the more nearly impossible such an occurrence anywhere else. I therefore think it extremely unlikely that anything enough like us for real communication of thought exists anywhere in our accessible universe.

Simpson heavily argued that our way of evolution is too specific and random. This is the idea of evolutionary contingency, which states that evolution is dependent on Earth’s unique environment and is opportunistic and unpredictable. Simpson argues that since humans have developed in such a unique way that is contingent on the unique Earthly steps of evolution, the effort to even communicate with another humanoid species is futile and low chance. This leads Simpson to claim that we can better understand Unearthly beings by studying Earthly beings. While I do give credence to this claim, I argue that it doesn’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t attempt to message.  

Evolutionary contingency suggests that the development of intelligent, technologically advanced civilizations may not be a common or inevitable outcome of the evolutionary process. It emphasizes the role of chance events and environmental circumstances in shaping the trajectory of evolution. Given the vast number of factors and variables involved, the emergence of intelligent life may be highly contingent on specific conditions and unlikely to occur frequently, or unlikely to occur to where it gives rise to humanoids we can communicate with.

3.3 Existential Threats Argument

Circling back to the concerns raised in the previous Fermi Paradox section, with every action comes a potential reaction. With every message comes a potential response. Any message sent out into the void has a non-zero probability that it will be heard, and any message that is received has a non-zero probability that it will be understood. Therefore the possibility exists that an extraterrestrial intelligence could receive and read our messages, which carries a small but non-negligible probabilistic risk.

In the ongoing debate over METI, a major point of contention is the cost-benefit analysis of the potential outcomes of sending messages to extraterrestrial intelligence. The risks and benefits of METI are both highly speculative, making it difficult to determine which outweighs the other. It is impossible to predict with any certainty how first contact with extraterrestrial intelligence would unfold for humanity, making it equally impossible to determine whether the benefits of METI outweigh the risks, or vice versa. 

When it comes to the risks of METI, the potential consequences seem particularly high because there is so much at stake. The worst-case scenario for METI contact would be the complete extinction of humans and even the Earth itself. On the other hand, the best-case scenario is open to interpretation and could include a variety of positive outcomes, none of which would be as significant as the possibility of total extinction. This leads many, myself included, to believe that we are not in the most secure position to practice METI in current times. 

Science fiction has held long debates on whether extraterrestrials would be benevolent (see literature of Contact and Arrival) or malevolent (Independence Day and Close Encounters of the Third Kind). It is possible for both benevolent and malevolent extraterrestrial civilizations to exist simultaneously. However, another important factor to consider when assessing the risks of METI is the identity of the intended recipient of our message. While it is possible to argue that extraterrestrial civilizations might be benevolent for various reasons, the mere existence of a single malevolent civilization would still pose ethical risks for METI.

3.3.1 Threats from the Past

The risks associated with METI come with time. Another issue commonly voiced with anti-METI arguments is the fact that radio messaging has a turnaround time bound by the laws of physics. For example, the Arecibo message was directed at a cluster of potential suns with potentially inhabited worlds 25,000 light years away. That message would take that amount of time just to reach its target, and at least double the time for us to receive any message back. 

Messaging extraterrestrial intelligence (METI) efforts such as Arecibo do not pose an immediate threat to present-day humans, but one of the central ethical concerns of METI is that the consequences of such efforts may be borne by future generations. Just as the case in anthropic climate change, the practices of today can send us on a path with no recourse. It is arguable that both climate change and METI have effects that cannot be undone. While there may be effective solutions to mitigate the impacts of climate change, it is probable that once METI is initiated, it cannot be undone. 

3.4 The Responsible Messaging Arguments

Responsible Messaging 

The messaging done today and in the past has not had responsible considerations, but what does responsible messaging entail? Responsible messaging involves careful consideration of the content, timing, and method of transmission of messages, as well as the potential impact on both humanity and any potential extraterrestrial recipients. It takes into account the ethical, scientific, and social implications of sending messages to other intelligent beings. 

Some key principles of responsible messaging in relation to METI include transparency and inclusivity in decision-making, respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, and a consideration of potential current and future risks and benefits. Ultimately, the goal of responsible messaging is to increase our understanding of the universe and our place in it, while minimizing the potential for harm or negative consequences to ourselves. 

Another point to make is that there is no consensus for our message. There is no agreement among scientists, policymakers, and the general public on the risks and benefits of METI. Some argue that we should be cautious and avoid any potential risks, while others believe that it is worth taking the chance to learn more about our place in the universe. As long as there is a divide between ideologies on METI, there may be sufficient reason not to engage in messaging extraterrestrial intelligence. This is not to say that any splitting issue has no resolution. The issue on whether to practice METI is unique, and has external implications on humans in the future, as well as other intelligences. 

Do we owe it to other civilizations to keep quiet? Just as a message from elsewhere may shake up our existence, one may ask if we owe the same to them. Just as there is a divided opinion on whether we should engage in messaging extraterrestrial intelligence, there is also a divided opinion on whether we would want to learn about the existence of other intelligent civilizations. Again, there is no consensus on either question. But as we move to a world that is capable of highly intellectual projects, society may or may not have moved past psychological and spiritual factors that make the possible existence of ETI so daunting. 

Returning to the question of responsible message writing, what do we include? Many messages adrift include maps of our location in the local stellar neighborhood. If our galaxy was teeming with intelligent life, a map pointing towards our home could be as commonplace as a random street address in the neighborhood. But we are still under the impression that our galaxy is not teeming with other intelligent civilizations, and a map pointing towards our feeble rock would be unethical as there numerous problems that can arise when an unknown stranger has our address. 

Representing Humans is Troublesome  

A growing topic in the issue of METI is the representation of earthlings. It is worth mentioning first that we are not the only ones to inhabit Earth; millions of other species share a thin slice of their existence with us. While there is a burden to represent the entirety of humans, there is also an issue to represent the Earth as a whole. Humans do all of the communicating, so why does anything else matter? 

What if we were to agree that messaging is okay, what do we get to say? In terms of reaching a unified, agreed-upon message to send to the stars, we are not there yet. Chelsea Haramia addresses this in her forthcoming paper titled Understanding the Question of Whether to Message Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Her claim: not all messages are created equal. She brings forward the consideration that those who make the messages are relative elites in society. Scientists, while educated, are not global citizens. 

No person, nation, or society can ever represent the entire human race as a whole. Some of the best efforts at crafting messages can be found on the Voyager probes, which are quietly drifting through the interstellar medium at less than a percent of a percent of the speed of a radio message. The records on those probes would not reach other civilizations, unless they stumbled upon them, for hundreds of thousands of years. By that point, it would be reasonable to suggest that we would have either exceeded Earth’s carrying capacity and perished, or experienced some other form of setback, or alternatively found a way to avoid going down the path of no return.

While it’s true that humans are the only ones communicating and writing messages, it is important to emphasize which humans are doing the messaging. As Chelsea Haramia points out: 

With authority comes accountability and responsibility. METI practitioners have a responsibility not to create or reinforce injustice, and there is good ethical reason for them to take this responsibility seriously, even when there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions.

Haramia furthers this point by identifying two problems with current METI practices: first, the ones doing the messages are a West-centric bunch with a privileged place in society; and second, the ones who practice METI have no limits to what they can write and send– “METI practitioners have gained de facto authority on the matter simply by messaging.” What this means is that by conducting any practice of METI, one gains the ability, but not necessarily the authority, to craft the message and send it anywhere and at any time. 

The problem of leaving out many people’s input in crafting a radio message intended to represent humanity is twofold. First, it is an issue of participation in the creation of the message. Second, it is an issue of being accurately represented. Excluding voices from our global messages is reminiscent of the suffrage issues that past and present humans from diverse cultures have fought against. By excluding a diverse and inclusive range of human voices, we are starting on the wrong foot. Every voice matters, and relying solely on a select group of scientists and communicators for input means that the voices of the rest of humanity are being left out, even if the representation of humanity may seem adequate to some.

3.4.1 The Issue of Participation 

The issue of participation can arise if we exclude a diverse range of voices from the process of crafting and sending messages intended to represent humanity, the resulting message is unlikely to be representative of all cultures and values. Representing the vast diversity of humanity is a challenging task, but if we leave it to a select few individuals to freely craft and send messages, we run the risk of not even knowing what is being sent. 

The Voyager Records successfully incorporated numerous depictions of humanity; however, this endeavor’s scope is confined to the spatial limitations of the Voyager record, which is restricted by its presence on a spacecraft. The Teen Age Message incorporated voices from a young generation, but limited its participation to teenagers from four different Russian cities. The Arecibo Message was created by two white Western scientists. The Cosmic Call was created by two other white Westerners. All of the radio and tv transmission are bleeding out into space involuntarily. It is both possible to participate in the creation of messages and sending messages themselves. But those typically lie in the hands of those fortunate and privileged to do so, as pointed out in Haramia’s paper discussed in the previous section. 

Such messages could be seen as a misrepresentation of some aspect of humanity, as it would not reflect the full range of perspectives, experiences, and values that exist within human society. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that a diverse and inclusive range of voices is involved in the process of crafting and sending messages intended to represent humanity.

3.4.2 The Issue of Representation 

What is the best way to represent humans? The question of whether to include the Earth as an embodiment of our species is a complex one, and it depends on how we define and conceptualize human identity. A question then begs whether we want to present ourselves as a product of our environment or our environment as a product of us. On one hand, we are intimately connected to our environment, and it has played a significant role in shaping our evolution and cultural development. On the other hand, humans have also had a profound impact on the Earth’s ecosystems and climate, raising questions about our responsibility and relationship to the planet.

Context and Interpretation: Messages are not only shaped by the sender but are also subject to interpretation by the receiver. The cultural, historical, and contextual factors influencing interpretation can greatly impact the meaning derived from a message. In the context of METI, we must consider how an extraterrestrial civilization, with its own unique context and perspective, might interpret our messages. Misinterpretations could lead to misunderstandings, unintended consequences, or even conflict.

The contrast lies in depicting humans as the result of a unique, terrestrial evolution that bred intelligence, or portraying the Earth as an anthropogenic sandbox that humans occupy and use at its expense. One may find the difference between the two ideas to be either nonsensical or irrelevant, but I consider their distinctions to be a valuable example of the representation issue. 

If we represent ourselves as a product of our environment, we take the bottom-up approach where humans are at the end of the emphasis, and everything that leads us to where we are today (Earth formation, evolution, history) is put at the forefront. If we represent our Earth as a product of us, it becomes a top-down approach, with human emphasis at the top, and the rest of the Earth is only represented because humans have chosen to do so. We only exist because of the Earth, but does the Earth only have significance because we are here to represent it intelligently? 

It is true that our existence is dependent on the Earth, but it is not necessarily true that the Earth only has significance because we exist to represent it intelligently. The Earth has inherent value and importance as a planetary body that supports and sustains a diverse range of life forms, not just intelligent humans. Even if we were not present, like we haven’t been for much of Earth’s existence, the Earth would still have value. However, it is also true that human beings have a unique ability to appreciate and understand the complexity and beauty of the Earth, which gives it additional meaning and value.

Today’s notions of human representation can follow an individualistic or collective view. However, there is certainly a gray area between the two ends of the spectrum. We are all individuals and have our own thoughts, morals, and abilities. At the same time, we are all made of the same genes and organ systems bound by the human senses, experiences, and shared space and time. We are all different, yet we are all very much alike.

This furthers the representation issue because there is no agreed central view on human beings. Although we humans do not work together as a hive mind, as other intelligences are sometimes depicted in science fiction, we still have a responsibility to present ourselves as a united species. When we emphasize the importance of the individual, we may inadvertently misrepresent humanity as a whole.

Nevertheless, it is natural to represent humans in either an individualistic or collective way, as both reflect the true nature of humanity. The fact that there are different views on how humans should be generally represented does not necessarily mean that there is a negative sentiment towards either view. It simply highlights the existence of a competing difference.

So we leave it for the future, but how far into the future until we can represent ourselves? The representation issue is not the only issue to address before we can conduct responsible messaging. There are other problems, such as the risks of messaging, that we should address. While this paper does hold that we are not in the position to message today, it does argue that there is a future state of things that qualifies us to start messaging. This paper has already identified a general criteria we should achieve before messaging, and that will be explained more in detail in future sections. 

3.5 Moving Forward

In my paper, it is crucial to acknowledge and address these anti-METI arguments to provide a comprehensive analysis of the topic. By discussing the concerns and counterpoints, I can demonstrate a balanced approach and an understanding of the potential risks associated with METI projects.

However, it is important to note that anti-METI arguments do not necessarily invalidate the significance of past, ongoing, or future METI efforts. METI initiatives have played a role in promoting scientific inquiry, fostering international collaboration, and engaging the public in discussions about our place in the universe. These efforts have expanded our understanding of interstellar communication, technological capabilities, and potential ethical considerations.

Furthermore, the fact that there are risks and uncertainties associated with METI does not negate the possibility of potential benefits. METI projects have the potential to initiate meaningful dialogue, stimulate scientific advancements, and enhance our understanding of the universe. They offer the opportunity to share knowledge and cultural information, and potentially establish peaceful and beneficial interactions with other civilizations if they exist.

Ultimately, while anti-METI arguments raise valid concerns, they should be considered within the broader context of the potential benefits, the current state of scientific understanding, and the progress made in METI endeavors. Evaluating both sides of the argument allows for a more nuanced and informed perspective on the significance and implications of METI’s past, present, and future. The next section will now turn the paper’s attention to pro-METI arguments. 

.

4 The Intelligence Implosion as the Great Filter

4.1 Introducing a Filter

Before defining what will soon become a new step in the Great Filter Theory, the next subsection will be dedicated to elaborating on the Theory itself.

4.1.1 The Great Filter and Steps

Here follows the [incomplete] steps of the Great Filter hypothesis. 

1. The right star system (including organics)
2. Reproduction (e.g. RNA)
3. Simple (prokaryotic) single-cell life
4. Complex (archaeatic & eukaryotic) single-cell life
5. Sexual reproduction
6. Multi-cell life
7. Tool-using animals with big brains
8. Where we are now
9. Colonization explosion

The steps, as mentioned above, are not intended to be complete. The only step that has been proved from an exo-solar view is Step 1, where scientists have confirmed countless cases of organics in star systems and nebulae, the building blocks of solar systems. The rest have zero proof outside our solar system, but scientists have for the past several decades have attempted to recreate what sparked life for prebiotic Earth. The famous Miller-Urey experiments carried out in the 50s simulated what early-Earth conditions were hypothesized to be like, and used electric discharges to see if amino acids could be produced from various organic molecules. While these experiments may oversimplify the true conditions of early Earth, they give credence to the potentiality of life elsewhere.  

So what about the next six steps? Our experimental science has taken us almost as far as step two when John Sutherland of the University of Manchester conducted a Miller-Urey-type experiment that would prove that spontaneous formation of RNA nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA, was possible under conditions like that of prebiotic Earth. As far as lab-producing a spontaneous living cell, no such experiments have been successful. The feasibility of further steps stops at step three, which may suggest within itself that somewhere along steps two and three could lie the Filter. This suggestion is solely based on the limits of our current understanding of science and laboratory capabilities, and not based on a purely natural ontology. 

It is important to discuss the first steps that are possible in terms of scientific recreation because it sheds light on the assumption that this paper relies on that the Great Filter lies in our future. Steps 3 and further can certainly take a different route when it comes to extraterrestrial evolutionary contingency. Life elsewhere may use the same chemicals but forgo the need for cell structure. The truth is that life may arise in similar ways as Earthlings, but the other side of the same coin is that life may be completely different from ours, maybe to an unfathomable extent. Just as we cannot imagine a new color or contemplate an extra sense, we may not fathom the nature of extraterrestrial life. They could operate on a whole different level than humans; different enough to ensure it is impossible to communicate, or different enough to require a more evolved human civilization to be technologically able to communicate. 

As biologists attempt to work through the early stages of the Great Filter, the human race is propelling towards steps beyond step 8’s “Where we are now.” And on that note, where are we? How can we situate ourselves among the rough eight hard steps that lie adjacent or behind us? Let’s examine the steps that come before and after our current step, which are steps 7 and 9, respectively. Step 7 is the first hint of intelligence as it requires a species to be intelligent through brain size and ability to use tools.  As compared to step 6’s multi-celled life threshold, this is quite the step up from multi-celled life. However, it is again worth mentioning that the original nine steps of the Great Filter are not complete. However, I still believe that the leap from multicellular life to intelligent tool users is a suitable milestone in the Great Filter, as additional steps between them could introduce a bias towards Earth-centric perspectives. 

Since the aim of the Great Filter is to characterize life in the entire universe, it is best to avoid cases where the steps are contingent on Earth-centric circumstances. Suppose a new filter step was added between steps six and seven. In that case, it would be preferable to define this step in a way that is not too closely tied to specific conditions unique to Earth. More specifically, the inclusion of a Great Oxidation Event as a filter step between the third and fourth hard steps is debatable. While the event was crucial for the emergence of multicellular organisms, there is a possibility that such organisms could have evolved through an alternative means. 

It’s worth conceding that, after the previous discussion, many steps of the Great Filter are Earth-centric. Steps three through seven are in no doubt based on preconceived notions of life in the context of our Earth. Steps 1, 2, 8, and 9 are flexible and theoretical enough to avoid Earth-centrism. My goal in this paper is not to gut and refurbish the steps of the Great Filter. The goal is simply to identify a possible filter and argue why it should be a criterion for a resumption of METI. 

Rethinking Step 8

Step 8, is simply framed as “Where we are now.” But in that case, where are we between the birth of tool-making and the colonization explosion? Although the distance in time and development between multicellular life and species with large brains capable of using tools is vast, the gap between tool-makers and humans today is not as significant in terms of relative time and achievements. We have not reached the next Filter, if the Great Filter lay before us. 

Step 8 of the Great Filter should not be identified as a hard step among the others. “Where we are now” is used in this paper to refer to the space between the last two steps of the Filter argument. This paper aims to identify what Step 8, soon termed “The Implosion Filter,” could be in the context of both the Great Filter Theory and METI, as it is only a partial goal of the paper. The original Step 8 does leave room to be replaced with a hypothetical step in which I will posit in the next section. 

Step 9 is the final step, at least of Hanson’s concern with the evolution of civilization, and is the aforementioned idea of the colonization explosion. For the purpose of my arguments, there is not much to be said about Step 9 other than two things: First, it gives us an endpoint, a reference point to base our Implosion Filter. Second, it begs the question of whether we should wait to message until Step 9. This question will be addressed later when I argue why we should wait to message extraterrestrial intelligences once we cross a proposed filter, and not do it sooner or later.

In order for the argument to work, I assume that we have yet to cross the Great Filter. Humans are an example that every step before is possible, and what gives rise to the situation as described in the Fermi Paradox is a step of the Filter in the future. Hanson leaves this list incomplete, and I will use this incompleteness to argue for the criteria that human civilization needs to achieve in order to start messaging. In this section, I will outline a new step of the Great Filter and characterize it in the nature of the Great Filter Theory altogether. 

The reason I assume that The Filter is ahead of us serves two purposes: 1) to leave room for discussion about future qualifications needed to message and 2) if the filter lies in the past, then the likelihood of us being alone is higher, and consequently, none of these considerations would hold much significance. Therefore, when pondering the ethical issues, it becomes primarily matters if the filter lies in the future.

However, it is important to review these steps with the consideration that the Earth is the prime (and only) example of many of the successful steps. Before going further, let’s take a look at the steps laid out. This list is intended to not be comprehensive. The Great Silence suggests that one of these steps is a major obstacle when it comes to the establishment of civilizations.

4.1.2 The Implosion Filter

In this section, I will identify a new hard step within the Great Filter and explain how it can be broadly applicable to other civilizations. This newly identified step serves as a substitute for Step 8, which merely marks the current position on the Great Filter timeline. 

In recent times, technology has become increasingly complex and multifaceted, with both positive and negative impacts on society and the environment. While technology can bring significant benefits and solutions to many problems, it can also create new issues and challenges that need to be addressed. One reason for this is that technological innovations often bring unintended consequences that may not be fully understood until they are deployed at scale. 

The Implosion Filter proposes that one potential explanation for the absence of observed advanced civilizations in the universe is that they reach a juncture similar to our current state, teetering on the brink of existential threats. For example, the creation of automobiles, nuclear technologies, and AI have contributed to great breakthroughs in society, as well as posing the greatest self-created threats to humanity: climate change, nuclear holocaust, runaway AI technologies, and so on. 

The scenario depicted in the Implosion Filter is termed the “Intelligence Implosion,” which I define as:

The Intelligence Implosion: Once a civilization becomes intelligent enough to have a substantial impact on the environment, they are also capable of inventing technology that could lead to their own destruction. In this step, a civilization’s collapse is not attributed to external factors, but rather to their own technological advancements, which give rise to existential threats superseding those originating from natural phenomena. Consequently, a critical juncture arises when the dangers posed by their own modifications outweigh the significance of the pre-existing natural hazards.

To clarify the argument, the Filter refers to the concept of “have a substantial impact on the environment,” a phrase that encompasses multiple factors requiring careful consideration. As per the Implosion Filter concept, attaining a notable degree of technological advancement or capability involves gaining the profound capacity to manipulate a species’ environment to such an extent that the resulting impact emerges as the primary threat to the civilization. To provide further insight, here are several instances of artificial threats that present greater dangers compared to the natural environment:

nuclear power, 

exhaustion of fossil fuels, 

war,

pollution, 

malicious genetic engineering,

nanotechnology,

cyberattacks, 

social and political manipulation,

megastructures, 

runaway AI.

Although this list is not comprehensive and only partial, it may appear to be Earth-centric. However, I assure that this is only a partial list for us and any other civilization. 

A civilization is driven by objectives, and some of these objectives revolve around engaging with and altering various elements of their planet. As civilization progresses, the impact of its modifications to the surrounding environment surpasses the influence of natural conditions. This transition can bring about new challenges and threats, resulting from the very changes the civilization initiated. This shift marks a pivotal moment in the civilization’s development, where the consequences of their actions become the primary concern and potentially determine their long-term survival and sustainability. 

Nevertheless, I contend that most species encounter a number of shared and unique environmental factors to solve on their path towards achieving Step 9. Not all species may require genetic engineering or measures for climate change, and there is a good possibility that those threats may not be faced at all. The reason behind mentioning Earth-centered challenges is to emphasize that every extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) will face unique obstacles that they must overcome in their own way.

The Implosion Filter is not a binary metric, meaning that passing it or failing it is not a simple yes-or-no determination, much like many of the other possible filters presented by Hanson. The filter is a process, one that I argue we are already in the process of traversing. The process of passing the Implosion Filter may not have a clear endpoint or final step. It will happen gradually, much like other aspects of human evolution and civilization. Therefore, determining the best time to begin messaging extraterrestrial civilizations, which is the main topic of this paper, is a difficult task that I will discuss and defend in the following sections.

Why the Intelligence Implosion is the Right Criteria

In the following subsection, I will explain how the Implosion Filter leads human civilization to postpone engaging in responsible Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence (METI) until this certain threshold is reached.

5 Implosion Filter as a METI-Activator 

So far, I have explained why we shouldn’t engage in messaging, but that’s not the main conclusion- of this paper. The next section will focus on why the Implosion Filter is a suitable method for initiating METI.

5.1 Passing the Filter Satisfies the Anti-Meti Arguments 

Before responding to the series of Anti-METI arguments from section three, I will lay them out in a list below:

3.1 The Fermi Paradox

3.2 Simpson’s Incompatibility Argument

3.3 Existential Threats Argument

3.3.1 Threats for the Future, from our past

3.4 Responsible Messaging Arguments:

3.4.1 The Issue of Participation

3.4.2 The Issue of Representation 

These points serve as both arguments against engaging in METI (Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and as considerations for our civilization’s progress toward Step 9. Arguments 3.1 and 3.2 are presented as hypothetical scenarios that might suggest messaging is futile, regardless of the time period – past, present, or future. 3.3 and 3.4 are more tangible arguments, and are the ones that tend to be in the spotlight of the conversation today. These points will form the core of the argument in favor of activating METI. By analyzing how the successful passage of the Implosion Filter can alleviate the concerns posed by the anti-METI arguments presented, it becomes clear that this marks the point at which METI evolves into an ethically sound, existentially safe, and important endeavor for humanity.

Response to Anti-METI Argument 3.1: The Fermi Paradox

The Fermi Paradox has prompted a significant query: Should we remain silent? Conversely, this paradox urges us to actively address the question of why the Great Silence persists. However, relying solely on the Fermi Paradox should not be sufficient to completely deter all METI endeavors. Additional facets of the Fermi Paradox are intricately linked to the counter argument of existential threats, and these will be further explored in subsequent sections. 

Response to Anti-METI Argument 3.2: Simpson’s Incompatibility 

Simpson’s Incompatibility argument (3.2), does not convincingly halt METI efforts indefinitely. The core of this argument rests on the notion that attempting communication might be futile due to the principles of evolutionary biology. This argument implies that, on an independent system like an extraterrestrial planet, advanced beings similar to the likeness of human intelligence might bear no resemblance to humans and thus face insurmountable challenges in understanding one another. 

The crux of my argument now hinges on the discussions surrounding arguments 3.3 through 3.4.2. These points are subjects of intense debate within the context of METI considerations, and they are interconnected with the discourse surrounding the Implosion Filter. In the upcoming sections, I intend to address the remaining three arguments (3.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2) and elaborate on how the strategy of waiting until we surpass the Implosion Filter effectively addresses the concerns raised against METI. This approach will also serve as a switch for determining the optimal timing to attempt communication with extraterrestrial intelligence

Response to Anti-METI Argument 3.3: Existential Threats

Existential threats provide perhaps the most obvious and dire basis for opposing METI practices. Per the thought experiments raised by the Fermi Paradox, we naturally ponder the reasons other civilizations might also opt for solitary. This could be due to the possibilities that these civilizations either do not exist, are present but remain undiscoverable, or deliberately choose to remain quiet. I label this argument as the “most obvious and dire” not to imply greater importance, but to denote its potentially impactful and most direct consequences for humanity. 

Choosing not to send a message would be the most cautious approach to avoid negative outcomes. So, why does the idea of navigating the Implosion Filter imply that we could eventually communicate safely in the future? Because passing the filter implies that many of the threats we have created for ourselves have been solved or safeguarded. By successfully passing this trial, human civilization accomplishes the ability to defend itself, from itself and the natural environment. 

In Jiang et. al. 2022, the authors illustrate an important point that aligns with the views of this paper:

However, logic suggests a species which has reached sufficient complexity to achieve communication through the cosmos would also very likely have attained high levels of cooperation amongst themselves and thus will know the importance of peace and collaboration. Along that same line of reasoning, it would be quite probable for any ETI we contact to have already successfully traversed “The Great Filter” of self-destruction, together with achieving interstellar communication capability. Hence, passing the Great Filter serves to assure that both the ETI and humanity are unlikely to come into conflict in a way that would result in the annihilation of either civilization—even if only due to mutually assured destruction.

The assertion that a civilization capable of interstellar communication inherently comprehends the significance of peace and cooperation doesn’t universally apply. The human race exemplifies this by possessing communication abilities yet lacking awareness of peace and collaboration. Nevertheless, encountering a contemporary cosmically communicative civilization would probably indicate their superior advancement due to our relatively brief period of time we have been messaging. The likelihood of two civilizations within the same cosmic vicinity sharing a comparable technological stage is minimal, given the universe’s vast age. One is likely to hold greater advancement, particularly considering humanity’s short-lived existence.

The Jiang paper, similar to this one, discusses a “Great Filter of self-destruction.” However, I want to emphasize that my contribution to the topic is the concept of the Intelligence Implosion as the Great Filter. While ideas of Intelligence Implosions and Great Filter theories predate this paper, I’ve uniquely applied the Intelligence Implosion to the Great Filter Theory, specifically focusing on guiding responsible METI practices. While Jiang hints at this idea, I expand on it to provide a more comprehensive perspective. As noted in section 4.1.1, the Implosion Filter was motivated by the original Great Filter Theory’s absence of a defined Step 8. Jiang’s contributions align with the conclusions of my paper regarding the responsible timing for METI practices, as they suggest any civilization that we can come into contact with has traversed their Implosion Filter.

In the context of METI, this implies that by refraining from engaging in the practice and focusing on navigating the Intelligence Implosion phase, we achieve the “high levels of cooperation” as mentioned above. This perspective posits that to pass the Intelligence Implosion, a civilization must prioritize cooperation and peace and conquer the threat of self destruction. Jiang also argues that because this ETI has evolved to be able to communicate by interstellar means, it is probable that they traversed the Intelligence Implosion, or in their words– self-destruction. This would align with this paper’s argument that we should wait to survive our Implosion Filter to message. 

If other civilizations are able to message and respond, they too have considered the potential existential threats.  Maybe they were messaging before they crossed the Implosion Filter, just like us. But, as argued in Jiang et. al., the point at which we begin to have two-way communication with an ETI implies that that civilization has traversed the Implosion Filter. If we wait until we cross our Great Filter to make dedicated and responsible messaging attempts, the chance of existential threat is much lower from the outside and inside. It is much lower across the board because traversing the Implosion Filter implies developments in global collaboration, defense strategies, and the self-awareness of the fact that the biggest threat to their existence is themselves. 

Indeed, as we mold our surroundings and advance our society, the very technologies we create often emerge as the primary peril to our survival. The same technological advancements enabling us to engage with extraterrestrial intelligences also hold the potential to jeopardize our own civilization. This is the underlying theme of this section. However, as we successfully navigate the Implosion Filter and devise strategies to mitigate these self-endangering advancements, we position ourselves in a way that aligns with the point Jiang’s makes – establishing that an encounter with another civilization would not result in catastrophic consequences for either party.

Response to Anti-METI Argument 3.4: Responsibility of Representation and Participation 

Every day, we as humans strive to find solutions to the problems that are affecting our world today. Most of our issues today do undermine our stability as a civilization that aims to live on forever. Our Earth is plagued with various issues, such as climate change, geopolitical instability, nuclear armament, and the imminent possibility of dealing with artificial intelligence. These issues will need to be addressed in order to successfully traverse the Implosion Filter. Each one of these are anthropogenic and have already risen to some of the highest threats that face humanity today.

One issue that is less threatening, but undermines current METI enterprise, is the subject of representation and participation of METI practice. Scholars are not hesitant to point out that previous METI efforts have been West-centric, with the initiatives being led primarily by astronomers who have limited interaction with social scientists. Improving the inequities comes with traversing the Implosion Filter as the scale of issues that come with the Implosion itself require, or at least strongly suggest, those issues to not pose disadvantageous humanity. The way we want to present ourselves to an extraterrestrial audience should be an authentic one. 

Achieving Responsible Messaging through the Filter

Traversing the Implosion Filter inherently entails the advancement of a civilization on both social and technological fronts, far beyond our current state. This progression suggests that, in order to adeptly navigate the challenge of avoiding self-destruction, substantial endeavors aimed at peace, cooperation, and meticulous planning are integral to achieving the overarching global objective of security. In essence, the technologies that currently or will eventually pose the most significant threats to our civilization will necessitate a collaborative and ethical engagement from every facet of humanity.

Anthropologist John Traphagan points out a discrepancy about the Voyager Records: “the records also contain no images of the darker side of humanity, such as war, poverty, and environmental degradation.” Not representing the darker side of humanity can result in a misrepresentation of humans. Not representing the Earth can be a misrepresentation of a civilization. The question of who speaks for the Earth becomes a question of should anyone be speaking for Earth. 

Responsibly representing ourselves emerges as a pivotal concern when engaging in communication with extraterrestrial intelligences. At its core, this practice entails individuals speaking on behalf of a collective, where a select few voice the aspirations of an entire planet encompassing its past, present, and future. Disparities in our modes of representation—spanning language, cultural conventions, and societal beliefs—can present obstacles to upholding our ethical and responsible obligations in the realm of interstellar communication.

By actively addressing the representation issue, we can enhance the quality and integrity of our messages to ETI. This includes ongoing discussions, collaborations, and reflections on the diversity of human perspectives and the cultural nuances involved. Taking these considerations into account will help us fulfill our responsibilities in interstellar communication and promote responsible and ethical engagement with potential extraterrestrial intelligences.

Chelsea Haramia and Julia DeMarines are some of the most outspoken ethicists on the topic of representation. In their paper An Ethical Assessment of SETI, METI, and the Value of Our Planetary Home, they stress the importance of developing methodologies for appropriately ethical messaging. They point out:

One important reason to engage in methodology before messaging is that the products of our methodology– such as regulations or codes of conduct or degrees of consensus– are revisable and changeable in light of new evidence or information, where as the products of messaging– the interstellar messages themselves– cannot be revised or recalled… 

Messages that misrepresent humans, speak on behalf of others, or disregard the participation of a diverse and inclusive spectrum of voices are destined to traverse the cosmos for as long as the signal carries. The realization that our civilization exhibits disparities even in confronting existential threats underscores the incomplete nature of our worldwide voice and, consequently, our representation.

Conquering the threat of the Intelligence Implosion can pave the way for an inclusive and representative state of ethics by fostering a foundational environment of stability and foresight. When a civilization successfully combats the dangers that could lead to their own downfall, they create a solid platform upon which ethical considerations can flourish. By averting self-destructive tendencies, societies can allocate more resources, attention, and effort toward promoting values that are inclusive and representative. When existential risks are minimized, people can focus on broader ethical concerns that encompass the well-being and rights of diverse groups, ensuring that decision-making processes are equitable and representative of various perspectives.

Moreover, a society that has overcome the Filter is better positioned to engage in thoughtful ethical discourse and long-term planning. This environment encourages open dialogues and the exploration of ethical frameworks that prioritize cooperation, empathy, and inclusivity. As a result, ethical norms and principles can be formulated in a manner that accounts for the interests and voices of all individuals, leading to a more inclusive and representative ethical landscape. In essence, by triumphing over self-implosive obstacles, societies create a stable foundation upon which they can build ethical frameworks that embrace diversity, inclusivity, and representation, ultimately fostering a more harmonious and equitable state of ethics.

When considering the threats that can undermine a civilization, the solutions devised to address these challenges often stem from ethical considerations for approaches aimed at devising effective countermeasures. While tackling issues like combating climate change and pollution doesn’t solely revolve around the prospect of navigating an Intelligence Implosion, these endeavors frequently necessitate ethical reasoning. Similarly, efforts towards diplomacy and de-escalation of global tensions are driven by the desire to foster more symbiotic and ethical relationships, albeit not always explicitly concerned with avoiding self-annihilation.

Prominent threats such as nuclear disarmament, responsible control of AI, and safe practices in genetic engineering are all significant endeavors that aim to avert catastrophic outcomes. However, the convergence of these diverse issues highlights two fundamental points: firstly, we are progressing towards successfully navigating the Implosion Filter; and secondly, these challenges are approached with ethical frameworks at the forefront of our considerations.

We have two options: either we show our species’ true nature today or we improve until we become presentable to other intelligences. The fact that we strive to fix the issues that plague Earth suggests that we want to do better for ourselves, our future generations, and the image of humans altogether. 

Engaging in attempts to communicate with extraterrestrial intelligences might appear as a misstep, especially when we struggle to establish a consensus on core human rights or sustainable practices for our planet. The prospect of encountering extraterrestrial intelligence remains unpredictable and beyond our foresight, yet as of now, no such contact has taken place. Nevertheless, the significance of our endeavors to counter the threats we’ve generated and the subsequent concern for accurate representation is relevant because it will inevitably shape how we portray ourselves in the event of such an encounter.

As generations progress, the realization that a divided society is unsustainable will likely lead us to prioritize cooperation, equality, and a concerted effort to reduce self-destructive tendencies. The timeline for achieving megastructures or harnessing the power of the planet is currently distant from our current state of technological advancement. The nature of accomplishing these projects takes a global effort, and a global effort takes a global agreement. Solutions are necessary for the survival of the human race, and there is little reason to believe that humans walk voluntarily into extinction; we either achieve or fail to achieve. With achieving, we become cohesive and amiable, qualities of which are desired when representing humans to the rest of the universe. 

A representative framework promotes peaceful dialogue, diplomacy, and conflict resolution mechanisms. By providing a platform for negotiation and communication, it helps prevent conflicts that could escalate into self-destructive behaviors. International cooperation, facilitated by representatives, can lead to the resolution of disputes and the establishment of frameworks that reduce the likelihood of self-annihilation through wars or conflicts.

It is completely conceivable that these technologies are not desired or possible by future generations, especially when it comes to how the next several generations handle climate change, nuclear arms, and artificial intelligence. When considering humanity’s situation, it becomes evident that we are currently at or approaching a critical point where threats to our existence are imminent. In this context, it is crucial to acknowledge that if a civilization reaches a level of advancement where it can effectively address challenges without posing threats, it has successfully overcome what can be referred to as the Implosion Filter, rather than merely prolonging its arrival.

Conversely to the optimism of this paper, the advancement of technology has the potential to amplify existing disparities across social, economic, and environmental realms. Those with access to new technologies can exploit the advantages than those without such access. This dynamic can give rise to fresh forms of marginalization and exclusion, thereby intensifying social tensions and fostering political instability. This scenario is inherent in the nature of progressive technologies, which mirror the ongoing trends: as technologies are conceived, they can simultaneously provoke issues during their development.

In essence, the path of innovation typically revolves around more robust technologies, or technologies that will begin to impact at larger and larger scales. However, this simultaneous advancement comes hand in hand with an escalation of risks associated with these technologies, which in turn increases the inherent hazards for humanity both directly and indirectly. Directly, the more extensively we mold our surroundings through technological advancements, the greater the threats we inadvertently pose to ourselves through the tools we create. Indirectly, technologies have the potential to worsen inequalities and marginalization, thereby undermining the overall well-being of the planet.

The act of Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence (METI) is not directly related to the efforts to solve global problems, and it can be practiced or protested independently. However, the timing of crossing the Implosion Filter is relevant to representation because it determines how prepared we are to encounter extraterrestrial intelligence and how we choose to present ourselves to them.

5.2 Why not Step 9?

Up until this point, I have argued why we should wait to pass the Great Filter to practice METI. But one glaring question is left unanswered: why not Step 9? It seems perfectly reasonable that we should wait until humans have devised a civilization that cannot be destroyed by one simple catastrophe. Many of the threats that are addressed in the previous sections are of the unnatural variety; weapons of mass destruction, runaway artificial intelligence, and bioengineered weapons all pose considerable threats to a civilization that relies on a single planet or technology. All of these considerations either threaten us today or we are feeling the pressure of them in the near future. 

However, could the safest approach not be to wait until we successfully navigate the final challenging stage of the Great Filter Theory? While this may seem theoretically sound, there are equally weighted arguments that caution against such prolonged waiting. Let’s consider a couple of these concerns::

1. Contact with extraterrestrial intelligence has the potential to yield significant benefits, as emphasized throughout the paper. Communication, through the exchange of information, is fundamental to human progress in various endeavors. Similarly, once we reach a certain level of advancement, ETI can offer us similar benefits through their knowledge and insights.
2. Step 9 of the Great Filter theory could indeed be a critical stage that acts as a potential barrier to the development and survival of civilizations. Considering the conclusions drawn in this paper, if a civilization is approaching Step 9, it would likely possess the necessary tools and capabilities to engage in responsible and safe messaging with extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). Therefore, it is worth considering initiating communication rather than waiting excessively. Taking proactive measures aligns with the idea that advanced civilizations should be able to exercise caution and responsibility when engaging in interstellar communication.

Indeed, waiting indefinitely without taking action may potentially lead to a prolonged period of uncertainty. If the consensus among humans leans towards a silence policy, it can be respected. However, it is crucial to recognize that such a philosophy cannot persist indefinitely. At some point, the need for resolution and the fundamental question of our place in the universe may outweigh the hesitation to message.

If we never initiate communication, we may never find the answer we seek about the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Similarly, if we wait for a message that never arrives, we are left with the same lack of resolution. Therefore, there comes a point where the potential benefits of reaching out, even with the uncertainties and potential risks involved, may outweigh the continuation of silence.

6 Conclusions

This paper achieves three objectives: 1) it establishes why human civilization is not currently in a position to engage in messaging, 2) it introduces a new step in the Great Filter theory, and 3) it builds upon the first two points to argue how the Great Filter Theory can be utilized to guide responsible METI practices. 

It is important to reiterate that the assumption that this paper rests upon is that we have yet to cross the Great Filter. This may be believable still, as we have yet to encounter any other civilization capable of interstellar communication. Now, this may be the case for many other different reasons than the Great Filter Theory but the reason this paper utilizes the Great Filter as it’s desiderata for METI is to respond and fulfill the anti-METI arguments of today. By waiting to cross the Implosion Filter, we conceivably achieve countermeasures to self-annihilation, a responsible construction of message practices, and a representation of the human civilization that is desirable for all.

The paper didn’t address a significant question: whether we should wait for extraterrestrial communication to reach us first. Although a valid point, the paper concentrated on applying the Great Filter Theory as a METI benchmark, forgoing the idea that we would be contacted first. In a different context, one could outline specific conditions for responsible METI resumption (i.e. the point of first contact). I use the Implosion Filter as my activation criterion, detailing the general conditions for messaging once we have traversed our Great Filter. While first contact might not occur, we must still reflect on past practices to ensure responsible METI approaches in our future, when we are in a position. 

One existentially-trivial upshot of this paper is that the true challenge for humanity is yet to come. We are approaching the aforementioned Advancement Crucial Point, a point in which pre-existing technologies become the main threat to ourselves, taking the place of natural threats. We have and have used nuclear arms, but there lacks a nuclear defense system and denuclearization. We have industrialized to the point that artificial pollution and contaminants may one day be the leading cause of cancer. We have yet to achieve world peace, fix hunger, or even combat pandemics. Artificial Intelligence is knocking at our door as well. 

The point at which we can address these concerns is when we can responsibly communicate with extraterrestrial intelligences. However, I doubt this will happen within our lifetimes. A little more than a century ago, wireless broadcasting was a new concept, less than a century ago we realized the dangers of nuclear weapons, less than half a century ago Apartheid came to an end, and just recently the world faced a severe pandemic. Humanity must address numerous issues before safely and responsibly engaging with extraterrestrial beings. 

This paper by no means is against the search for extraterrestrial intelligences. In fact, I believe we have a lot to learn from turning our eyes and ears towards the cosmos. In light of recent congressional hearings, there may be a chance, although dubious, that extraterrestrials are in fact on Earth already. As intriguing as those claims are, they must not be taken with full credence. But let us not refrain from finding the truth, whether it be here on Earth or out there in the cosmos. I’d be ashamed of my civilization if we had the tools to find out the answers and refuse to look.